Sohail Shahzad v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 397 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerned Mr Sohail Shahzad’s late appeal against HMRC’s maintenance of surcharges for 2005/06 and 2006/07 and related complaints about interest. The FTT granted consent to admit the late appeal but held it had no jurisdiction to determine complaints about interest under s.86 TMA, and dismissed the appeal on surcharges because Mr Shahzad had no reasonable excuse for late payment. The tribunal confined its formal decision to the surcharges as adjusted and noted interest issues were not for it.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The tribunal’s decision indicates that appeals may be heard by the FTT only where statute provides a right of appeal (eg s.59C(9) TMA for surcharges); by contrast s.86 TMA, which imposes interest, does not itself give the tribunal jurisdiction to entertain complaints about interest. Further, administrative confusion or HMRC errors do not necessarily amount to a “reasonable excuse” for late payment where the taxpayer accepts the assessed liability and could have paid the net balance.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that reasons for inability to pay (as distinct from inability to pay per se) can in some circumstances amount to a reasonable excuse notwithstanding s.59C(10)’s exclusion of mere inability to pay. It also suggested that where HMRC miscalculate interest the appropriate remedy may lie outside the tribunal (eg by court proceedings or a separate claim) rather than as part of the tribunal’s jurisdiction over surcharges.